create_notification_policy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists structural requirements and the priority semantic ('higher = evaluated first'). It does not disclose side effects, validation rules, idempotency, auth requirements, error cases, or the fact that this operation persists a new object.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the operation name. However, the 'Required:' label is inaccurate and the structure mixes required and optional parameters without clear delineation, reducing the value of its compactness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the highly nested input schema with optional fields, enums, and default behaviors, the description is not complete enough. It fails to mention the catch-all behavior of empty matchRules, omits several subfields, and misrepresents requiredness. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is forgiven, but the input guidance is inadequate for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mislabels optional fields as required: 'Required: name, matchRules, escalation, enabled, priority' — but the schema only requires name and escalation; matchRules, enabled, and priority are optional. It also omits the 'values' field in matchRules and the requireAck/repeatIntervalSeconds options in escalation steps, giving an incomplete and misleading parameter summary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a notification policy.' This clearly identifies the operation without ambiguity, and the 'create' verb inherently distinguishes it from the update/delete/test siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the name, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_notification_policy, delete_notification_policy, or test_notification_policy. The verb 'create' implies use for new policies, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.